Allahabad High Court

Deepak Kumar Alias Sameer vs State Of U.P. on 29 August, 2025

Author:
Krishan Pahal

Bench:
Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:152447

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12130 of 2025

Deepak Kumar Alias Sameer

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)

:

Ramesh Kumar Pandey

Counsel for Opposite Party(s)

:

G.A.

Court No. - 65

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.274 of 2023, under
Section 376
IPC and
Sections 67
,
67A
I.T. Act, Police Station Khoda, District Ghaziabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. This is the third bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.8.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.38042 of 2023 and the following order was passed:-

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gyan Narain Kanojiya, learned AGA for the State.

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Deepak Kumar @ Sameer, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.274 of 2023, under
Section 376
I.P.C and
Sections 67
,
67A
I.T Act, Police Station Khoda, District Ghaziabad.

There is allegation against the applicant of committing offence of rape and making obscene video of the victim viral.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no such material collected by the Investigating Officer.

Learned AGA has placed before the court the case diary of the case which clearly proves that the Investigating Officer has collected sufficient material for implicating the applicant. He sent obscene video of victim, to her, her husband and also her father-in-law.

This Court after hearing the learned counsels for the parties does not finds any ground for enlarging the applicant on bail at this stage.

The bail application is accordingly rejected. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant as expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of two years from the date of production of certified copy of this order."

5. The second bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 4.9.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.29013 of 2024, which is being reproduced herein as under:-

"1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 274 of 2023, under
Sections 376
I.P.C. and
Section 67
and
67A
of I.T. ct Police Station Khoda, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.

3. This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by Hon'ble Siddharth, J. vide order dated 29.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.38042 of 2023. The instant bail application has been released by the Bench of Hon'ble Siddharth vide order dated 09.08.2024, as such, it has been placed before this Court as assigned.

4. As a new ground, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the victim has been examined as PW-1 during trial and she has stated that the relationship with the applicant continued even after her marriage. As such, the applicant is entitled for bail.

5. There is a video on record which suggests that the applicant had transferred it to the victim, her would be husband and her father-in-law. Since, no new ground has been given by learned counsel for the applicant as such, I do not find it a fit case for bail. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

6. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

7. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of
Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab
2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

8. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial."

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that subsequent to it, the prosecution witnesses have been examined as PW-1 and PW-2 and both have stated that they do not know the date on which the said photos and videos were received by them, as such, the allegations are vague and do not stand substantiated by any evidence. Only two witnesses have been examined to date and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 10.07.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed much reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court passed in
Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
, (2024) 9 SCC 813 and stated that as the case of the applicant is pari materia to the said case, he is also entitled for bail.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that in the judgment of Supreme Court passed in
X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
, 2024 INSC 909, it is opined that if the delay is not attributed to the accused then he is entitled for bail. The relied paragraph 16 of the judgment is being reproduced herein as under:-

"We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed."

10. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application.

11. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned Trial Court. As per the said status report dated 05.08.2025, three witnesses have already been examined.

12. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of rejecting the second bail application of the applicant, the statement of PW-1 was already there and it stands mentioned in that order.

13. The status report indicates that the statement of PW-1 (victim), PW-2 and PW-3 has been recorded. The delay, if any, could not be attributed to the prosecution.

14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that no new ground is there for pressing the third bail application, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

15. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been
laid down in
the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of
Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab
; 2015 (
3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India
; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

16. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

August 29, 2025

(Ravi Kant)